Looks like the quite race to replace Tom DeLay on the ballot is getting rather interesting.

But whose interests are really bing looked out for by the major players mentioned by Chris Elam in his outstanding political blog, "Texas Safety Forum"?

What to do about empty precinct chair positions? Sugar Land Mayor David Wallace wants them filled -- and he just happens to have a list of candidates who support David Wallace for the nomination. Opposition to the move by Wallace is fierce in Harris County, strong in Brazoria County, and even exists in Fort Bend County as well.

David Wallace may have pressed too hard for the election of new precinct chairs in Harris County. Resistance to his efforts to find sympathetic, NEW chairs in that part of the world has been named as one of the main reasons that Bill Borden stepped forward and advised the party leaders to withhold new nominees to the Exec. Comm. until after the CD 22 nomination is complete. His campaign to find new precinct chairs is in full force in the counties of Brazoria and Fort Bend, and I understand from sources in Brazoria that he is being met with resistance there by leaders who are concerned about appointing single-issue precinct chairs who will not remain involved in the party past the nomination process. Also, its rumored that in Fort Bend, should a slate of new nominees to the Exec. Comm. be offered, opponents to the process of their nomination will not attend the meeting at which they are to be voted upon, thereby preventing a quorum from being reached (which according to Bill Borden, will also prevent the appointments). We'll see what happens in this strateg-ory as the weeks go by.

Sounds like a strategy that is self-serving and destructive to the long-term health of the GOP in CD22. Wallace deserves to fail in this move -- and has probably cooked his goose among the precinct chairs who are responsible for selecting the new candidate.

Chris has more at his site -- but I don't want to steal his thunder.

Posted by: Greg at 08:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 2 kb.

This is all the reason anyone needs to oppose John McCain for any public office. He does not believe in fundamental American values.

Via Tapscott and Captain's Quarters -- as heard on Don Imus.

"He [Michael Graham] also mentioned my abridgement of First Amendment rights, i.e. talking about campaign finance reform....I know that money corrupts....I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."

And how, precisely, would we know that it was clean if freedom of speech and freedom of speech have already been eliminated? Sounds like a recipe for Fascist Italy or Communist Russia to me.

I'll stand with Jefferson, the genius behind the Declaration of Independence and passionate advocate for a Bill of Rights.

The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to.

Those who would suppress freedom of speech in the name of "clean government" are, in fact, those who would impose the most vilest forms of government known to human history. Such men and women are dictators-in-waiting, seeking only the proper moment to impose their foul will upon an unconsenting populace, rendering free men and women into slaves in the blink of an eye.

MORE AT Missing Link, Martin's Musings, MyDD, RedState, Slublog, Mark A. Kilmer, Joseph Barillari, Frazzled Dad, Instapundit

OPEN TRACKBACKED TO: Voteswagon, TMH Bacon Bits, Stuck on Stupid, Adam's Blog, Third World Country, Liberal Wrong Wing, Blue Star Chronicles, Conservative Cat, Tor's Rants, Uncooperative Blogger, 123Beta, Church and State, Cigar Intelligence Agency

Posted by: Greg at 08:01 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 305 words, total size 4 kb.

At least the illegal immigrants they are supporting only demand a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. These California Democrats are taking Monday off -- but engaging in a scam to get three day's pay despite doing so.

he Democrat leaders of the California State Assembly have decided to call their own boycott for May 1, canceling legislative session that day in deference to the protests. But, showing that their commitment only goes so far, they declared Monday a “check-in” day so as not to forfeit their $459 tax-free per diem for the weekend and Monday. A true legislative walkout would have led to lawmakers losing per diem pay for Saturday and Sunday, as well as Monday since spending more than three consecutive days away from the Capitol triggers a halt in the highly-prized extra pay.

The audacity of the move is simply stunning -- I'm absolutely speechless.

But I do love the response of one California Republican legislator.

The legislative protest by the Democrats caught Republican Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy’s attention. Mountjoy remarked at the close of Thursday’s session that he had spoken to former members of the legislature who where willing to come to work on Monday for half price. The only issue was that they were, “undocumented by the Secretary of State.” Does that mean that “undocumented” lawmakers are willing to do the work that American lawmakers aren’t willing to do?

I wonder -- any chance of actually using the "undocmumented legislators" to pass some good legislation for a change? After all, we keep being told that "no person is illegal." Shouldn't that logic apply here, too?

Or will teh Democrats suddenly become supporters of law and order?

Posted by: Greg at 06:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Will someone inform the former First Satyr that he is just a private citizen – and will someone inform the Secret Service that the ex-Horndog-in-Chief’s presence is not sufficient basis to stop people from engaging in legal activities.

Or to bust in on a five-year-old’s birthday party and stop the entertainment.

Clinton was preparing to hit his second shot on the fifth hole at Las Vegas Country Club on Saturday when Secret Service agents halted a birthday party fireworks event.

It's a birthday that Savanna Muirhead, the 5-year-old daughter of 28-year-old porn star Sophia Rossi, won't forget.

Savanna was preparing to launch a remote control 18-inch rocket when Clinton's bodyguards "came out of nowhere" and had the launch scrubbed.

Bobby McKelvey, who had just set up the rocket on the edge of the fairway in the backyard of Rossi's home on Bel Air Drive, recalls hearing the stern words, "Sir, do not fire that rocket."

He looked up and saw two badge-flashing Secret Service agents running toward him, while three more agents came out from behind trees.

"We cannot have you shooting rockets at President Clinton," said one of the agents as he approached the party of 80, said McKelvey.

Clinton, in a party of more than a dozen, was about 50-75 yards away, said McKelvey, 41, who described himself as Rossi's manager.

The rocket, fired later, includes a parachute that explodes when the missile reaches a height of 300-350 feet, McKelvey said.

I’d have fired the damn thing anyway, and dared them to take me in. After all, the fireworks were legal, their use was legal, and there was clearly no threat to Billzebubba. I would have also not-so-politely suggested that they get the hell off my property until they had obtained a warrant

On the on the hand, I might have been amenable to a request that I let Clinton play through – a matter of golf etiquette. But such an overreaction by the Secret Service merits no respect.

Posted by: Greg at 12:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.

Will someone inform the former First Satyr that he is just a private citizen – and will someone inform the Secret Service that the ex-Horndog-in-Chief’s presence is not sufficient basis to stop people from engaging in legal activities.

Or to bust in on a five-year-oldÂ’s birthday party and stop the entertainment.

Clinton was preparing to hit his second shot on the fifth hole at Las Vegas Country Club on Saturday when Secret Service agents halted a birthday party fireworks event.

It's a birthday that Savanna Muirhead, the 5-year-old daughter of 28-year-old porn star Sophia Rossi, won't forget.

Savanna was preparing to launch a remote control 18-inch rocket when Clinton's bodyguards "came out of nowhere" and had the launch scrubbed.

Bobby McKelvey, who had just set up the rocket on the edge of the fairway in the backyard of Rossi's home on Bel Air Drive, recalls hearing the stern words, "Sir, do not fire that rocket."

He looked up and saw two badge-flashing Secret Service agents running toward him, while three more agents came out from behind trees.

"We cannot have you shooting rockets at President Clinton," said one of the agents as he approached the party of 80, said McKelvey.

Clinton, in a party of more than a dozen, was about 50-75 yards away, said McKelvey, 41, who described himself as Rossi's manager.

The rocket, fired later, includes a parachute that explodes when the missile reaches a height of 300-350 feet, McKelvey said.

IÂ’d have fired the damn thing anyway, and dared them to take me in. After all, the fireworks were legal, their use was legal, and there was clearly no threat to Billzebubba. I would have also not-so-politely suggested that they get the hell off my property until they had obtained a warrant

On the on the hand, I might have been amenable to a request that I let Clinton play through – a matter of golf etiquette. But such an overreaction by the Secret Service merits no respect.

Posted by: Greg at 12:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

* WELCOME HOUSTON CHRONICLE READERS! *

I've once again been struck by the ignorance that abounds in the media regarding the Constitution and what it means when it uses certain terms. It is as if there is an intentional rejection of the history of certain words and phrases, in the interest of getting a story.

Take this comment from none other than Bob Novak, who should know better (after all, he covered the Constitutional Convention along with Helen Thomas)

The U.S. Constitution prohibits a religious test for public office, but that is precisely what is being posed now. Prominent, respectable Evangelical Christians have told me, not for quotation, that millions of their co-religionists cannot and will not vote for Romney for president solely because he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If Romney is nominated and their abstention results in the election of Hillary Rodham Clinton, that's just too bad. The evangelicals are adamant, saying there is no way Romney can win them over.

Romney is well aware that an unconstitutional religious test is being applied to him, but he may be seriously minimizing the problem's scope as limited to relatively few fanatics. He feels the vast majority of conservative voters worried about his faith will flinch at the prospect of another Clinton in the White House. But such a rational approach is not likely to head off a highly emotional collision of religious faith and religious bias with American politics.

No, Bob, there is no "unconstitutional religious test" being applied to Romney, based upon what you have written in this column.

As used in the COnstitution, the term "religious test" refers to oaths or actions that are required of a citizen BY GOVERNMENT before they might hold office or receive some government benefit. Such tests existed to one degree or another in most of the colonies prior to the Revolution, and were common in England into the 1800s. Many of them were directed at Catholics, and required that the officeholder take an oath that they rejected the authority of the pope and certain "false and pernicious doctrines" which were part of the Catholic faith. Quakers and Baptists were also often targetted by such oaths. The prohibition, therefore, is one on GOVERNMENT ACTION, not private action.

Unless I missed something in the Novak piece, no such religious test is being required by government.

What is happening, for better or for worse, is that questions are being raised in some minds about voting for a Mormon, given that faith's divergence from certain historical doctrines of the Christian faith. Now I've never heard such questions raised in the Republican or religious circles in which I run, but the media keeps telling me that they are. But assuming that they are, that does not constitute a violation of the prohibition on religious tests -- for the Constitution cannot and does not dictate what factors may be considered by individual citizens when they enter the voting booth, as the individual vote of a citizen is most decidedly NOT a government action.

Which is not to say that I approve of those who would let Romney's religion enter into their calculations. If it goes on, I find it offensive -- just as I did when Ted Kennedy raised the religious issue against Romney when he was the GOP nominee for Senate.

Posted by: Greg at 10:46 PM | Comments (92) | Add Comment
Post contains 584 words, total size 4 kb.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch is against mandatory photo identification of voters.

That is to be expected – anything that might prevent the voter fraud that empowers Democrats in the St. Louis area would be anathema to the paper’s editors. The basis for their objection to the Missouri Voter Protection Act now before the state legislature is therefore understandable – and they make it quite clear when they rename it the Republican Incumbent Protection Act. Their further claim that it is intended to rig elections is laughable, given the record of certain areas of Missouri in conducting dirty elections to elect Democrats.

But there was a shocking quote that appeared in the editorial – one that is laughable in its falsehood.

Most voter fraud in Missouri is linked to inactive voters, those on lists who haven't voted for years and suddenly show up at the polls. The new statewide voter database was designed to address that problem.

"There's no evidence that terrorists or dead people are voting in Missouri," Ms. Carnahan said.

Well, Robin, it is certainly well-documented that the dead turned out in St. Louis in 2000. One even filed suit to make sure he could vote for a fellow necro-American after the statutory poll closing time. And if you will check, the dead candidateÂ’s name was Carnahan. Any relation?

Posted by: Greg at 12:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 2 kb.

Looks like Crazy Cindy McKinney is being given the legal equivalent of a rectal exam, with aides from multiple Congressional officies being subpoenaed to testify before the Grand jury investigating her attack on a Capitol Hill Police Officer.

Staffers from four congressional offices, in statements read on the House floor Tuesday, announced they would comply with subpoenas issued by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

The offices of Reps. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., and Barbara Lee, D-Calif., confirmed that the subpoenas were related to the March 29 incident where McKinney, a Georgia Democrat, entered a Capitol building unrecognized by the officer on duty and then hit him when he tried to stop her.

Those receiving the subpoenas are thought to have been witnesses to the altercation.

The other two subpoenas went to aides to Reps. Lois Capps, D-Calif., and Donald Payne, D-N.J. Capps' office would not comment on the purpose of the subpoena and there was no immediate response from Payne's office.

Subpoenas were previously issued for aides to Reps. Sam Farr, D- Calif., and Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich. Troy Phillips, senior legislative assistant to Farr, witnessed the incident and testified about it before the grand jury on April 18, Farr's press secretary, Jessica Schafer, said Tuesday.

The officer involved in the incident, Paul McKenna, testified before the grand jury within the past week, the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call said Tuesday. McKenna has said he asked McKinney three times to stop. After she refused, the officer reportedly placed a hand on her and she hit him.

I look forward to the perp walk when she is charged -- and the scene of her turning herself in at a federal prison immediately after her resignation takes effect.

Posted by: Greg at 01:00 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 303 words, total size 2 kb.

Oh, never mind – the congressman with a serious conflict of interest is a Democrat. Nothing to see here – move along. Look over there -- Bigfoot!

An Englewood community center founded by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), a key player on telecommunications legislation, received a $1 million grant from the charitable arm of SBC/AT&T, one of the nation's largest phone companies.

The chief of a congressional watchdog group says Rush's ongoing association with the Rebirth of Englewood Community Development Corporation and his role in shaping telecommunications law as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee is a conflict of interest. Using charitable giving as a backdoor way to curry favor with lawmakers is coming under increasing scrutiny, figuring in controversies associated with former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.), who was forced to temporarily step aside as the ranking Democrat on the Ethics panel.

On Wednesday, the energy and commerce panel on which Rush sits is set to vote on a controversial rewrite of telecommunications law co-sponsored by Rush and backed by major phone companies eager to compete with cable television companies.

Anyone wanna place odds on his going against the interests of SBC/AT&T?

Rush, of course, sees matters very differently.

Rush, asked to explain whether he had a conflict in sponsoring telecommunications legislation in the wake of the grant, replied in a statement that the "real conflict" stems from inequities in the telecommunications marketplace that hurt the poor.

"It is a systemic institutional disinvestment in [the] poor by corporate America in communities such as Englewood," Rush said. "We deserve an even playing field."

In other words, he won’t seriously address the appearance of impropriety – not even to deny it. He won’t consider whether a large donation to a charity for which he and his wife serve as board members and where his son is employed stinks to high heaven.

I’ll stand with Common Cause on this one – I am not in a position to comment on the relative merits of the bill in question, but the receipt of the grant by the center at this time is “troubling.”

Posted by: Greg at 11:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 2 kb.

Let’s see – he was incompetent in his response to the oncoming hurricane, made racially-divisive comments, and is generally seen as a buffoon. Why wouldn’t voters who turned out to support Ray Nagin four years ago turn their backs on him this time?

Mr Nagin, who won office in 2002 largely thanks to a wave of support from white voters, failed to repeat his success on Saturday. He won barely 10 per cent of the vote in districts of the city that are predominantly white and African-Americans failed to support him in sufficiently large numbers.
With 38 per cent of the vote, Mr Nagin fell short of the majority needed to avoid a run-off, to be held on 20 May, against Mitch Landrieu, Louisiana's lieutenant-governor. Although Mr Landrieu garnered only 29 per cent, he is well placed to secure the votes cast for others now eliminated from the race.

Nagin never had the support of the African-American community – his support base came primarily from among the middle and upper-class white community who found the prospect of electing a businessman without strong ties to the corruption that plagued the city for decades to be an attractive option.

But then came Katrina, and his failure to properly order evacuations and assistance to those in need. It was followed by rants at those who questioned his leadership, racist comments about making New Orleans a “chocolate city”, and a campaign that was marked by calls for blacks to vote for him because other candidates “don’t look like us.” Could you give me a single reason why a white voter (or any voter) would want to vote for this man? The fact that 38% of voters selected him makes me question the preparedness of the voters of New Orleans for self-government!

In short, the results of the race for mayor of new Orleans will show less about the relative power of different ethnic blocs than it will about the willingness of the city to give failed leadership one more chance.

Posted by: Greg at 11:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

Let’s see – he was incompetent in his response to the oncoming hurricane, made racially-divisive comments, and is generally seen as a buffoon. Why wouldn’t voters who turned out to support Ray Nagin four years ago turn their backs on him this time?

Mr Nagin, who won office in 2002 largely thanks to a wave of support from white voters, failed to repeat his success on Saturday. He won barely 10 per cent of the vote in districts of the city that are predominantly white and African-Americans failed to support him in sufficiently large numbers.
With 38 per cent of the vote, Mr Nagin fell short of the majority needed to avoid a run-off, to be held on 20 May, against Mitch Landrieu, Louisiana's lieutenant-governor. Although Mr Landrieu garnered only 29 per cent, he is well placed to secure the votes cast for others now eliminated from the race.

Nagin never had the support of the African-American community – his support base came primarily from among the middle and upper-class white community who found the prospect of electing a businessman without strong ties to the corruption that plagued the city for decades to be an attractive option.

But then came Katrina, and his failure to properly order evacuations and assistance to those in need. It was followed by rants at those who questioned his leadership, racist comments about making New Orleans a “chocolate city”, and a campaign that was marked by calls for blacks to vote for him because other candidates “don’t look like us.” Could you give me a single reason why a white voter (or any voter) would want to vote for this man? The fact that 38% of voters selected him makes me question the preparedness of the voters of New Orleans for self-government!

In short, the results of the race for mayor of new Orleans will show less about the relative power of different ethnic blocs than it will about the willingness of the city to give failed leadership one more chance.

Posted by: Greg at 11:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 346 words, total size 2 kb.

Crazy Cindy McKinney is back at it again. Now she thinks her commands supersede the First Amendment.

Rep. Cynthia McKinney still does not know whether she will face criminal charges for allegedly punching a U.S. Capitol Police officer who stopped her at a security checkpoint. But the Georgia Democrat is pulling no punches with the media, ordering an Atlanta television station not to broadcast derogatory comments she made about a member of her staff on Saturday.

McKinney was meeting with constituents and agreed to an exclusive interview with WGCL-TV, CBS 46, of Atlanta. During that interview, CBS 46 reporter Renee Starzyk asked McKinney what she is telling her constituents about the altercation.

"Actually you, media people are the only ones who are asking about that," McKinney claimed.

But a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., also is asking about the incident, trying to determine whether or not to refer criminal charges against the congresswoman. The panel has not yet made its decision, and Starzyk asked if that is a distraction from McKinney's work.

"Well, you're a distraction because that seems to be all you want to talk about," McKinney responded. "But people here understand that my representation is much larger than any discrete incident."

Well let’s see – a member of Congress assaults a cop at the Capitol and the press is interested. I wonder why? Could it be that an ordinary citizen would already be in jail?

Of course, Cindy continued her tantrum.

McKinney then walked out on the interview. But she did not tell Starzyk that their conversation was over, nor did McKinney allow an audio technician to remove the wireless microphone attached to her for the interview.

While she was off camera, McKinney criticized a member of her staff, Coz Carson.

"Oh, crap! Now, you know what?" McKinney asked an unidentified aide. "They lied to Coz and Coz is a fool!"

Realizing that her microphone was still on, McKinney returned to the room where the interview was being conducted and, knowing that she was on camera, told Starzyk: "Anything that is captured by your audio, that is captured while I'm not seated in this chair, is off the record and is not permissible to be used. Is that understood?" McKinney said.

Sorry, Cindy, but Congressional perks do not include controlling the content of the media – especially when you are the subject. Fortunately, Ms. Starzyk refused to be dictated to.

In her report about the interview, Starzyk reiterated the station's policy never to make deals with newsmakers limiting the station's ability to cover their comments or actions.

In fact, Starzyk reported, she specifically told McKinney's staff that she would ask about the March 29 incident. McKinney maintains her claim that the reporter lied to her staff.

So, who do you believe – Her Majesty the Congresswoman or the reporter?

Posted by: Greg at 09:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 484 words, total size 3 kb.

Of course there is a double standard, one established by the law and hte COnstitution.

On the one hand, the President and certain other executive branch officials have the authority to classify and declassify certain information based upon its sensitivity. Information may, from time to time, be declassified and let out to the press in a variety of ways to give the American people a fuller picture of what is going on -- and to counter falsehoods put forth by those who would misrepresent the actions and policies of the government.

Then there are unauthorized, illegal leaks. Those almost invariably harm national security -- especially when done in a manner designed to harm the ability of the president to conduct legal policy initiatives or to undermine his legitimate authority.

So I found this piece in today's Washington Post, which published the seditious stories of Dana Priest based upon the illegal leaks of Mary McCarthy, to be particularly interesting.

Key Democratic legislators yesterday joined Republicans in saying they do not condone the alleged leaking of classified information that led to last week's firing of a veteran CIA officer. But they questioned whether a double standard exists that lets the White House give reporters secretly declassified information for political purposes.

"I don't know this woman, and I do not condone leaks of classified information," said Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, referring to the firing of Mary McCarthy.

Harman added that "while leaks are wrong, I think it is totally wrong for our president in secret to selectively declassify certain information and empower people in his White House to leak it to favored reporters so that they can discredit political enemies," she said on Fox News Sunday.

Harman was referring to White House staff members disclosing the classified identity of CIA case officer Valerie Plame in 2003.

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) echoed Harman, saying, "A CIA agent has an obligation to uphold the law, and clearly leaking is against the law. And nobody should leak." But he added: "If you're leaking to tell the truth, Americans are going to look at that, at least mitigate or think about what are the consequences that you . . . put on that person."

Well, Rep. Harman, let's spell this one out. The President authorized the release of truthful information in order to counter false claims made by those political opponents. In the case of Joe Wilson, for example, the release of information proved him to be a liar many times over -- a position confirmed by multiple investigations. is it your contention that the President should allow false claims made for partisan political purposes to remain unchallenged and that he should thereby allow the American people to remain misinformed? If so, does this not do harm to the very fabric of the American system?

And Sen. Kerry, thank you for once again proving your unfitness for the office you sought in 2004 and plan to seek in 2008. You would clearly allow unauthorized leaking to run rampant if unelected governemnt employees differ with the policies of the elected leaders of the United States. In short, America would not be secure under a Kerry presidency.

And all this ignores the fact that recent investigations have shown Dana Priest's story on "secret prisons" to be false -- so there cannot even be a claim made that this was a case of "leaking to tell the truth."

I guess, when it comes down to it, we have a different double standard at work on the Democrat side of the aisle, one that really ignores questions of truth and legality -- anti-Bush leaks good, pro-Bush leaks bad.

Posted by: Greg at 10:46 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 624 words, total size 4 kb.

Lincoln Chafee is no Republican – that is why his wife is seeking to get Democrats to come over to the GOP to secure a Senate nomination he cannot get if only Republicans vote.

(H/T Steve Muscatello's C-Log)

From the Steve Laffey for U.S. Senate campaign:

Dear All,

Please read the following--it is truly outrageous. Below you will find a letter Stephanie Chafee (Lincoln Chafee's wife) emailed to registered Democrats URGING them to disaffiliate and register as Independents or Republicans so that they can vote for Senator Chafee in the Republican primary on September 12th. Included are the attachments Mrs. Chafee sent along with her email instructing voters HOW and WHERE to disaffiliate. This is a blatant attempt by the Chafee campaign to HIJACK the Republican primary, and further proof that Senator Chafee does not represent even moderate Republicans in Rhode Island. It is clear Lincoln Chafee cannot win the Republican primary in Rhode Island without the help of liberal Democrats. It is also clear that the Chafee campaign is beginning to panic in light of Mayor Laffey's continued success. Please spread the news to all who might be interested. We cannot let Senator Chafee get away with this. This letter can also be seen here.

Just in case Rhode Island voters were too stupid to figure out to disaffiliate on their own, Ms. Chafee provided them with a nice how-to-guide.

Five Easy Steps To Disaffiliate (Become a Unaffiliated Voter)

1.) Fill out the Rhode Island Voter Registration form (page 3 and 4 of your packet). Be sure to check unafilliated in section 8 of your registration form for your political party, which will enable you to vote in either the Democrat or Republican primary.

2.) Mail the completed form to your local board of canvassers. For a complete list of addresses see the bottom of your Rhode Island Voter Registration form.

3.) You will receive a confirmation letter detailing your new party affiliation from the Secretary of StateÂ’s office shortly after you mail in your completed Voter Registration form.

4.) On Primary Day, September 12th, at your local polling station you will be given a choice of which primary you would like to enter.

5.) Immediately after voting, you can get a disaffiliation form from the clerk at the polling station and change your registration back to your initial party affiliation.

Somebody tell the RNC to wake up and start funding Laffey's campaign. Chafee makes Arlen Specter look like Barry Goldwater. He's a fraud and should be run out of the party. Period.

Keep the GOP Primary Republican – MAKE A LITTLE LAFFEY LOVE!

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 443 words, total size 3 kb.

Somebody had to say it, given the Reuters headline.

At 74, U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy still roars

When will he be bold enough to tell us all about Mary Jo?

Posted by: Greg at 01:48 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

I really do not know how you explain something like this.

Nobody expects to get a letter from a member of Congress that ends with an expletive.

But that's what happened when Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo., recently corresponded with a resident of her southeast Missouri district.

The letter ended with a profane, seven-letter insult beginning with the letter a — "i think you're an. ..."

Emerson says she can't explain how the offensive language made it into the letter, which otherwise reads like a typical response to a citizen's question about last year's testimony of oil executives before the Senate Commerce Committee.

"There is no excuse for this inappropriate letter having been sent, and every apology has been made to the individual who received it," Emerson said in a statement to The Associated Press.

"We cannot determine whether the addition to the letter was made by someone within the office or by someone with access to the office, but it is on my letterhead and the responsibility for it lies with me. A valuable lesson has been learned and new procedures will be adopted as a result."

Particularly embarrassing is the fact that Emerson signed the letter personally – and even included a personal postscript apologizing for the delay in answering the constituent’s letter.

Posted by: Greg at 12:58 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 1 kb.

Usually, an incumbent with 40% of voters backing him for reelection is in serious trouble. Not in Texas – at least not this year.

Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) is enjoying a growing lead in a four-way campaign to keep his job.

For the third straight election poll by Rasmussen Reports, Perry earns support from 40% of Texas voters. Normally, this level of support would be devastating for an incumbent, but nothing is normal in Texas this year. Two Independent candidates join Democrat Chris Bell in there desire to replace Perry. All three earn between 15% and 19% of the vote.

The biggest change from our previous survey is the receding threat to Perry from Carole Keeton Strayhorn. Strayhorn, who is currently the state Comptroller, initially intended to challenge Perry in the Republican Primary.

When that route looked unappealing, she left the GOP to run as an independent. In February, before the Democrats had settled on their candidate, Strayhorn attracted 31% of the vote and had pulled within nine points of the incumbent. Now, with 19% support, Strayhorn is at her lowest level of support since entering the race.

Strayhorn's presence in the race has added an element of drama in what was expected to be an easy walk to re-election for Perry. However, it has also created difficulties for Democrat Chris Bell to draw attention to his campaign. Bell, now at 17% in the poll, has less than half the support of Governor Perry.

Kinky Friedman, unfortunately, is at the bottom of the poll with 15%. He would at least make the race fun.

The key thing to consider is this – as of today, Perry beats any of his opponents by a 2-to-1 margin. It would take one of these three dropping out of the race and every last one of their supporters migrating to one of the other candidates for Perry’s margin to drop to less than 5%. And if he and the Legislature produce a credible school finance reform package, expect him to see a big increase in support.

Posted by: Greg at 12:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 2 kb.

The new claim by some Democrats is “I’m suing George Bush!" The only problem with the claim is that it is not true.

Kelly Hayes-Raitt says she is suing President George W. Bush. Christine Chavez is touting her "legal challenge" against the president's education policies. Joe Baca says he joined the suit because the president has "lost sight of education." Rudy Bermúdez rails against the "burdensome" provisions of Bush's signature No Child Left Behind Act.

All four are candidates in contested Democratic primaries this June. And all four are clients of Democratic political consultant Richie Ross.

In fact, a group of thirteen Ross clients, and one non-Ross candidate, have banded together to file an amicus brief in a federal-court case against the Bush administration's education policies. At least two of the candidates, Hayes-Raitt and Chavez, have been publicizing the amicus brief in their campaigns.

But some are calling the move a Ross-engineered election-year stunt to win support for his candidates in left-leaning Democratic primaries. All 14 signatories of the brief are running for office this year, and all but one face a contested primary election.

Assemblyman Joe Baca, D-Rialto, who is running for the state Senate against fellow Assemblywoman Gloria Negrete McLeod, D-Chino, said that Ross approached him with the idea of a group legal action.

"He had brought the idea to us and I thought it was a great idea," said Baca. Ross did not return calls for comment.

"It is almost like they are running as some kind of team across the state," said Parke Skelton, a Los Angeles-based Democratic political consultant who is running campaigns against four signers of the amicus brief.

The lone signatory of the brief that is not a Ross client is Los Angeles City Council member Alex Padilla, who is running for the Senate against Assemblywoman Cindy Montañez, D-San Fernando. Padilla said he heard about the brief, which was filed on March 31, on a trip to Sacramento and wanted to join in. Asked if it was odd that he was the only non-Ross client to sign onto the amicus brief, Padilla replied, "It wouldn't be the first time I stood out in a crowd."

Unfortunately for these clowns, their claim is easily refuted. Filing an amicus brief in the case is not the same as suing someone. It is in some ways the legal equivalent of writing a letter to one’s congressman – to quote the late Chief Justice Rehnquist, it is a brief filed by “someone who is not a party to the litigation, but who believes that the court's decision may affect its interest.” In other words they are not suing anyone, just expressing their opinion on what should happen.

DoesnÂ’t it suck to have the truth collide with oneÂ’s campaign publicity stunts?

Posted by: Greg at 12:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 469 words, total size 3 kb.

Well, when you are a liberal Republican running against a grassroots conservative, I would suspect that funds would dry up.

Rhode Island Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee is the only senator running for re-election who is raising less money than his primary opponent and both Democrats running to replace him, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

"This is an ominous sign. If Chafee can't get the financial support in his party's primary, he's not going to get the voter support," said Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesman Phil Singer.

I agree with Singer – and therefore wonder why the GOP establishment remains behind the uber-RINO when there is a strong candidate in Steve Laffey.

Keep sending the message folks – HOW ABOUT SOME LAFFEY LOVE!

Posted by: Greg at 12:51 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.

1 ismgcz onbsw

Posted by: delhi at Mon Sep 1 05:32:20 2008 (whJgp)

2 cikn sxbtnv

Posted by: yahoo at Mon Sep 1 17:24:35 2008 (0CitT)

3 tyberw xqbump syaiph vjtslxr

Posted by: invoice at Tue Sep 2 10:41:09 2008 (WiG7S)

4 bmpq sfltcau

Posted by: puppy at Thu Sep 4 05:09:38 2008 (ZTh+z)

5 jpmtl jyfk pymta

Posted by: true at Thu Sep 4 06:30:05 2008 (ZTh+z)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I wonder – does Hawaii legislator Marcus Oshiro understand anything about economics. While supporting the repeal of a cap on gasoline prices, he made this statement.

The House said that plan is too complicated. House members want the cap repealed for good, but threaten gasoline executive with up to five years in prison if they unfairly manipulate the free market.

"Those instances would probably prompt a criminal or civil investigation and possibly prosecution," Rep. Marcus Oshiro said.

If it is truly a free market, then there would be no government investigation or prosecution – because the market would take care of “gouging” (a nonsensical term) via the choices made by the consumers.

Posted by: Greg at 12:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

I wonder – does Hawaii legislator Marcus Oshiro understand anything about economics. While supporting the repeal of a cap on gasoline prices, he made this statement.

The House said that plan is too complicated. House members want the cap repealed for good, but threaten gasoline executive with up to five years in prison if they unfairly manipulate the free market.

"Those instances would probably prompt a criminal or civil investigation and possibly prosecution," Rep. Marcus Oshiro said.

If it is truly a free market, then there would be no government investigation or prosecution – because the market would take care of “gouging” (a nonsensical term) via the choices made by the consumers.

Posted by: Greg at 12:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

Even though he has been driven out of the CD22 congressional race, Tom DeLay is likely to overcome the trumped-up political charges against him. He achieved another victory today in a Texas appellate court.

An appeals court Wednesday upheld a judge's ruling throwing out a felony conspiracy charge against former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

DeLay, who announced this month that he is resigning his congressional seat, still faces a money-laundering charge and another conspiracy charge stemming from the financing of state legislative races in 2002.

A lower court judge dismissed a conspiracy charge against DeLay in December, agreeing with defense arguments that the conspiracy law did not cover election code violations in 2002; the Legislature amended the law in 2003.

Prosecutors had argued before a three-judge panel of the 3rd Court of Appeals that conspiracy to violate the election code had always been a crime and that the 2003 change merely clarified the law.

Once again, the courts uphold the basic constitutional principle that ex post facto laws are not permitted – even when it interferes with the intrigues of a political hack like Ronnie Earle. I’ve no doubt that the rest of the charges will be easily refuted in court – and that the misconduct that has plagued this prosecution will lead to professional sanctions against the rogue prosecutor.

Posted by: Greg at 12:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.

The Democrat leaders of St. Clair County turned out to wish Charlie Powell a happy birthday on April 7, even though his birthday doesn’t roll around until April 28. But then again, Powell will not be available on April 28 – he reported to federal prison on April 17 to begin his 21 month sentence for election fraud.

St. Clair County Circuit Judges John Baricevic and Milton Wharton attended on the evening of April 7 at Club Illusion in East St. Louis as did Associate Judge Laninya Cason and an estimated 250 other party-goers.

They had come to wish a happy birthday to a politician who, even after being convicted of vote fraud, was able to influence county politics. St. Clair County Board Chairman Mark Kern and his wife, Erin, also were at the party as was Assessor Gordon Bush and prominent Belleville attorney Bruce Cook, who defended Powell during his June trial for conspiracy to commit vote fraud.

* * *

Partygoers said Powell circulated through the club's crowded rooms, stopping at tables to talk with friends he has known during more than 30 years of political life.

"He's been a great leader... With his absence you can see all the confusion that's going on at city hall," said Frank Smith, a Democratic precinct committeeman in the city who said he has been a friend of Powell's for three decades.

Smith, a caseworker for East St. Louis Township, said he spoke with Baricevic at the party.

"I talked to Judge Baricevic. He praised Charlie," Smith said.

Bush, the assessor, said, "Charlie Powell is a very good friend of mine who made a mistake. However, I feel that because of all the good that he's done through the years he is worthy of my being present at his birthday party. And I was honored to be there."

Bush has said it was Powell's recommendation last year, after Powell's vote fraud guilty verdict, that led to his appointment as assessor to replace Percy McKinney, who resigned.

Could you imagine the outrage if the shoe were on the other foot, and these were Republican judges and other elected officials turning out to honor a convicted official days before he began his sentence – for example, Duke Cunningham? Could you imagine the outrage from Democrats and the press if he were still being publicly praised by senior elected officials despite his conviction?

So, want to tell me which party has a culture of corruption?

(Please note – I took no pleasure in writing this piece. Judge Baricevic’s sister is an old co-worker of mine, an excellent educator and a faithful member of the School Sisters of Notre Dame whose service to God and the children of southern Illinois is inspirational.)

Posted by: Greg at 12:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 469 words, total size 3 kb.

They canÂ’t get federal financial aid because of their crimes.

One in every 400 students applying for federal financial aid for college is rejected because of a drug conviction, an analysis of Department of Education numbers by a drug policy overhaul group found.

A study to be released today by Students for Sensible Drug Policy says 189,065 people have been turned down for financial aid since the federal government added a drug conviction question to the financial aid form in the 2000-01 school year.

A September report from the Government Accountability Office shows that in the 2003-04 academic year, about 41,000 applicants for federal student aid were disqualified because of drug convictions.

A student can regain eligibility, however, by completing a rehabilitation program that includes random drug tests.

“In the majority of cases, students retain their eligibility,” Education Department spokeswoman Valerie Smith says.

The aid analysis, compiled by the student group from data released last week by the Department of Education, notes that Indiana has the highest percentage of rejections, with one in 200 students denied financial aid because of drug convictions.

Indiana Rep. Mark Souder, a Republican and the author of the legislation, says it makes no difference how the states rank.

“The principle remains the same: the American taxpayer should not be subsidizing the educations of those students who are convicted of dealing or using illegal drugs,” Souder said in a statement provided Sunday.

The ACLU, of course, has filed suit to overturn the law on the basis that it is the only offense for which such a restriction exists (not true – failure to register for the draft is also a disqualifier). If this challenge succeeds, I hope Congress does the right thing and expands the law to deny government aid to ALL convicted felons.

Posted by: Greg at 11:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

It seems to me that some lawyers and city officials in New Orleans ought to be in serious trouble with a federal court over this situation.

More than seven months after New Orleans residents were forcibly and illegally disarmed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the City of New Orleans will begin returning seized firearms to their rightful owners on Monday, according to a gun rights group that took legal action against the city.

"We've learned from the police that starting Monday at 8 a.m., New Orleans gun owners can get their firearms back," said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), which has been working with the National Rifle Association (NRA) in court to force officials to return guns confiscated after Katrina struck the city on Aug. 29, 2005.

Gun owners must provide proof of ownership, such as a bill of sale, and a description of the firearm, including brand and model and the serial number or a notarized affidavit that describes the firearm.

Citizens claiming their firearms will also need proper identification, such as a driver's license. Before firearms are returned, New Orleans police will conduct a background check on the gun owner.

Now hold on – the police are going to do a background check on owners of firearms they illegally confiscated. That certainly troubles me.

But more to the point, IÂ’m troubled by this little detail.

As Cybercast News Service previously reported, few people objected when police last fall began gathering firearms they found in abandoned New Orleans homes to prevent them from falling into the hands of criminals.

However, the SAF and the NRA sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop authorities in and around the city from seizing firearms from private citizens. The SAF said arbitrary gun seizures, without warrants or probable cause, had been reported. In some cases, police refused to give citizens receipts for their seized firearms, according to the SAF.

A federal judge quickly issued the TRO, but New Orleans officials denied that any guns had been seized and ignored the court order.

The impasse between the city and the pro-gun groups continued until March 1, when the SAF and NRA went back to court.

"The city had been denying for more than five months that these guns were in possession," Gottleib said. "Only when the SAF and the NRA filed a motion to have Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Superintendent Warren Riley held in contempt of court did city officials miraculously discover that more than a thousand seized firearms were being stored.

The city denied seizing the guns in court filings, but now claims to have them to return to citizens. It appears to me that there were false statements made to the court. Somebody needs to face perjury charges, and some lawyers need to face disciplinary action over this. It seems that the Nagin Regime not only doesnÂ’t believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, it also does not believe in the truth.

Posted by: Greg at 11:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 514 words, total size 3 kb.

The standard Leftist meme is that "Bush lied" regarding Iraqi efforts to get uranium from Niger. The only problem is that every examination of the evidence shows that the liar was Joe Wilson, whose word is taken as Gospel-truth by the Left.

In a surprising editorial, The Washington Post deviated from the conventional anti-Bush media position on two counts. It said President Bush was right to declassify parts of a National Intelligence Estimate to make clear why he thought Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. And the editorial said ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson was wrong to think he had debunked Bush on the nuclear charge because Wilson's statements after visiting Niger actually "supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium."

In the orthodox narrative line, Wilson is the truth-teller and the Bush the liar. But Wilson was not speaking truthfully when he said his wife, Victoria Plame, had nothing to do with the CIA sending him to Niger. And it obviously wasn't true, as Wilson claimed, that he had found nothing to support Bush's charge about Niger when he (Wilson) had been told that the Iraqis were poking around in that uranium-rich nation.

Testifying before the Senate intelligence committee, Wilson said that the former prime minister of Niger told him he had been asked to meet with Iraqis to talk about "expanding commercial relations" between the two countries. Everybody knew what that meant; Niger has nothing much to trade other than uranium.

Yeah, that's right -- Niger doesn't have much else to export, and Wilson confirmed that Iraq was seeking to do business with Niger. What else would Iraq have been after -- goats, camels, and slaves?

More to the point, every subsequent investigation into the Niger story shows that there was plenty of other evidence to back the contention thqat Iraq was seeking uranium.

The forged documents claiming an Iraq-Niger connection were so crude that they could never have fooled the CIA or British intelligence for very long. Who would do this, and do it so badly? Nobody knows. But if the forgeries were meant to distract from other evidence that Bush was right, then they certainly worked. Look around in American journalism, and you will find great certitude that the forgeries destroyed Bush's claim.

That certitude can only be founded on the belief that Tony Blair, the U.S. Senate intelligence committee and the special investigative team of Parliament were all liars when they said there was substantial non-forged evidence backing Bush's claim. The investigative team was headed by the highly regarded Lord Butler, who served as a Cabinet minister under five prime ministers. It concluded that Bush's 16 words about Iraq's uranium shopping were "well-founded."

Actually, there is one other way to discount the Butler report: Either muffle or don't mention it in your news columns. The New York Times opted for muffling. A database search finds no mention of "well-founded" in the Times reporting, and only one barely scrutable paragraph about uranium in the Butler report, way down in the 11th paragraph of a story buried well inside the paper.

In other words, the reason that the "Bush lied" meme survives is because most of the press simply refuses to give substantive discussion to the evidence of Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium. Instead, Joe Wilson and his wife are painted as martyrs, and his claims are validated based upon that status -- despite the fact that every investigation of his claims have led to the opposite conclusion.

Posted by: Greg at 10:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 591 words, total size 4 kb.

Treason charges would be much better -- she rendered aid and comfort to Saddam Hussein.

Before the bombs fell on Baghdad, Judith Karpova went there to put herself in harm's way.

The veteran activist was among dozens of "human shields" who poured into Iraq as the U.S.-led offensive loomed in early 2003, although she ended up leaving before the war.

Three years later, Karpova is again playing defense, this time against a $6,700 civil fine from the government.

The Treasury Department fined the 61-year-old Hudson Valley woman and three other peace activists who visited Iraq for violating economic sanctions against the country. None of them are paying up quietly, and Karpova is before a federal appeals court disputing charges that she illegally exported services to Iraq as a shield.

"They say it's an export _ Export! _ of services to Iraq, as if a human being is a commodity that can be shipped like light bulbs," Karpova said.

The human shields stationed themselves at potential airstrike targets in Iraq such as food storage warehouses and refineries. U.S. officials warned them that there was no way to guarantee their safety and critics accused them of being pawns of Saddam Hussein. But they said they hoped to prevent attacks on a population that was already suffering.

'Nuf said.

Posted by: Greg at 12:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 1 kb.

Looks like the GOP is about to get another prominent black Republican candidate for office holder. Redskins great Darrell Green is being actively courted by the party for a run for the Virginia state Senate.

Former Washington Redskins cornerback Darrell R. Green is being urged to run for the state Senate from Loudoun County next year by leading Northern Virginia Republicans who hope he can use his fame on the football field to oust newly elected Democrat Mark R. Herring.

Green, one of the most well-known Redskins from the team's recent golden era, lives in Loudoun and has been running a nonprofit foundation since he left the team three years ago.

As a rookie in 1983, he captured the nation's attention with a stunning come-from-behind tackle of Dallas Cowboys running back Tony Dorsett during a Monday Night Football game. Now, some Republicans hope he can help their party recover from a string of bruising losses to Democrats in the past several elections.

"That name is on many lips," said former senator William C. Mims (R), whose Loudoun seat Herring won after Mims left to work in the attorney general's office. "[Green] is a longtime Loudoun resident who has been active in the community. He is highly respected and has an outlook that's consistent with Republican principles."

Green is a good man, and would be a strong candidate. I don't doubt that the name ID would be sufficient to help him win.

And I bet Oliver Willis, a big-time Redskins fan, will have an aneurism if this comes to pass.

MORE AT: Welcome to the Now, Delusional Duck

Posted by: Greg at 01:39 PM | Comments (103) | Add Comment
Post contains 275 words, total size 2 kb.

Looks like we have another Democrat member of Congress who believes that the rules that apply to everyone else do not apply to him. And, of course, it is another Democrat, running his office like his own personal plantation.

Two former staff members of U.S. Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Michigan, say the longtime Detroit congressman made them baby-sit his children, run errands and work on political campaigns while they were on his congressional payroll.

Sydney Rooks, whom Conyers hired as a legal adviser in his Detroit office, recalls the lawmaker brought his two young sons into her office several times, saying, "Rooks, they're your responsibility for right now. I'll be back later."
She said later could be a few minutes or an hour. "Later could be frantically calling around trying to find him because it was now 8 or 9 p.m. or later in the evening and not knowing what to do with the children," she said.

Conyers has even used his staff to house sit and care for his children for weeks on end while he and his wife were out of town. And there are also reports of these government employees being set to work on his campaign and the city council campaign of his wife.

Which party is the party of privilege?

MORE AT GOPBloggers

Posted by: Greg at 11:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 1 kb.

This is interesting. Does the position require Senate confirmation?

The White House is looking at a list of cost-cutting candidates to head the Office of Management and Budget, and Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, may be on it.

The former House majority leader, who announced he will resign from Congress and is under a state indictment on political money laundering charges, is listed as a possible replacement for Josh Bolten, the U.S. News and World Report said.

Bolten has been named incoming White House chief of staff.

Other candidates are familiar with the Bush administration, including Deputy OMB Director Joel Kaplan, the head of the National Economic Council, and Rob Portman, current trade czar.

Wouldn’t it be fun to watch all the apoplectic Democrats?

Posted by: Greg at 11:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

This is interesting. Does the position require Senate confirmation?

The White House is looking at a list of cost-cutting candidates to head the Office of Management and Budget, and Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, may be on it.

The former House majority leader, who announced he will resign from Congress and is under a state indictment on political money laundering charges, is listed as a possible replacement for Josh Bolten, the U.S. News and World Report said.

Bolten has been named incoming White House chief of staff.

Other candidates are familiar with the Bush administration, including Deputy OMB Director Joel Kaplan, the head of the National Economic Council, and Rob Portman, current trade czar.

WouldnÂ’t it be fun to watch all the apoplectic Democrats?

Posted by: Greg at 11:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

In the mid 1990s, I worked for a county mental health agency in a sheltered workshop/developmental education program for developmentally disabled adults. As a part of my job, I was assigned a slot on the mental health crisis team, and regularly took calls from local hospitals and law enforcement agencies to evaluate individuals for 72-hour emergency commitment to the state mental hospital is Alton. All together, I made the call to send about a dozen folks from our small rural county, based upon my assessment of whether or not these folks were a danger to themselves or others. They got no hearing, no lawyer or due process – that would be dealt with at the state hospital when and if the mental health professionals determined that a longer commitment was necessary.

That’s why this story caught my attention. It never crossed my mind that my decisions – made with no formal training in the mental health field – could have serious repercussions on the civil liberties of those who I believed needed mental health assistance.

As a Missouri corrections officer for more than 10 years, David Nelson is authorized to carry a gun on the job. But a year ago, he was denied a state permit to buy one.

The contradiction became a court dispute that reached all the way to the seven judges of the Missouri Supreme Court, who ruled unanimously Tuesday in Nelson's favor.

The issue dates to Sept. 11, 2003, when a judge in Callaway County ordered that Nelson be detained, evaluated and treated at a mental institution for 96 hours, against his will, because a Fulton police officer alleged that Nelson had talked about suicide.

In that period, the Mid-Missouri Mental Health Center determined that Nelson did not suffer from mental illness and needed neither medication nor psychiatric care. He never got a court hearing to protest the police officer's claim.

On April 27, 2005, Nelson applied for a permit to acquire a concealable weapon, which is different from a concealed-carry permit but is bound by similar rules. The Callaway County Sheriff's Department said no. Sheriff Dennis Crane, and later Prosecuting Attorney Robert Sterner, cited a state law that denies permits to felons or people having been committed to mental institutions.

Nelson sued, losing before Associate Circuit Judge Joe Holt, who had issued the detention order, and then before Circuit Judge Ellen Roper.

Nelson's attorney, Geoffrey Preckshot, took the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the ruling was unfair to his client and others in a similar situation. "Each of these persons is caught in an almost classic 'Catch 22'; never again to be trusted by society to be allowed to acquire a concealable firearm, but not crazy enough to justify a (commitment) proceeding," he said.

Writing for the unanimous court, Judge Richard B. Teitelman said Nelson had been put under "detention," which he said is different from "committed."

I think this is a good ruling. The mere fact that someone has accessed mental health services is not a basis for denying that person a fundamental right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. A higher standard must be met – and if a person cannot rebut the presumption of unfitness to exercise their rights because mental health professionals have determined that the initial assessment of non-mental health professionals was incorrect, then the very presumption is both absurd and unjust.

Posted by: Greg at 10:11 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 580 words, total size 4 kb.

Looks like Patrick Fitzgerald has had to back down on certain explosive claims he made in a recent court filing.

The federal prosecutor overseeing the indictment of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, yesterday corrected an assertion in an earlier court filing that Libby had misrepresented the significance placed by the CIA on allegations that Iraq attempted to buy uranium from Niger.

Last week, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald wrote that, in conversation with former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, Libby described the uranium story as a "key judgment" of the CIA's 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, a term of art indicating there was consensus within the intelligence community on that issue. In fact, the alleged effort to buy uranium was not among the estimate's key judgments and was listed further back in the 96-page, classified document.

In a letter to U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, Fitzgerald wrote yesterday that he wanted to "correct" the sentence that dealt with the issue in a filing he submitted last Wednesday. That sentence said Libby "was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."

Instead, the sentence should have conveyed that Libby was to tell Miller some of the key judgments of the NIE "and that the NIE stated that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."

Simply one more bit of evidence that Fitzgerals os out of control -- making false claims in filings to inflate the importance and significance of his work. He has exceeded his mandates as a special prosecutor, and needs to be closed down, and his charges against Scooter Libby dismissed.

By the way -- anyone else struck by the fact that the "correction" by Fitzgerald is buried by the same media sources that highlighted the original claims?

Posted by: Greg at 10:48 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.

Last spring, former Justice Department lawyer Hans von Spakovsky wrote an article – published anonymously under the name of Publius – regarding Voter ID laws for the Texas Review of Law & Politics. The article, published while von Spakosky was counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights, came as the department was considering Georgia’s Voter ID law, cited data that showed that such laws do not disenfranchise voters, despite anecdotal claims to the contrary.

Now the ACLU is up in arms over the article, demanding that von SpakoskyÂ’s views not even be considered as a new Georgia law, which was passed to meet concerns expressed by liberal groups and a federal court, is evaluated by the Justice Department.

ACLU lawyer [Neil] Bradley believes von Spakovsky's involvement in clearing the previous law could taint consideration of the current law. Bradley has asked Wan J. Kim, assistant attorney general for the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, to take steps to ensure von Spakovsky's views are not considered as part of the review of Georgia's new law.

In other words, the views of someone with expertise in election laws and who has reviewed the evidence rather than repeated the scare-stories should be excluded from consideration when laws are evaluated for discriminatory effect. Rather than attack the argument made by von Spakovsky, the ACLU lawyer attacks the man who holds them.

But more shocking is this inane quote from the ACLUÂ’s Bradley.

Neil Bradley, a lawyer for the ACLU Voting Rights Project, said the anonymous nature of von Spakovsky's writing is particularly alarming.

"Here's a man who had strong enough views that he published it, but then wanted to hide the fact he had the views," Bradley said. "Either he should have the views and stand up straight and admit them or he shouldn't be involved in the process."

Let's ignore the fact that such a statement is contrary to the official position of the ACLU on anonymous political speech -- a position taken repeatedly over the years.

It also ignores the history of political speech in America, in which pseudonymous and allonymous writings date back to before the American Revolution. That tradition includes the Federalist Papers, written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay to justify the aadoption of the US Constitution. Would Bradley like to argue that these men should not have been involved in the ratification process?

Oh, and by the way -- like von Spakovsky's article, the Federalist Papers were originally published under the name "Publius".

Posted by: Greg at 12:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 429 words, total size 3 kb.

Aftr all -- we have three serious candidates plus a Democrat running for governor.

And now the Democrats are going after one of the independents.

A University of Houston student on Monday accused supporters of independent gubernatorial hopeful Carole Keeton Strayhorn of misleading his classmates about the candidate's past stance on tuition deregulation.

Isaiah Warner, president of the school's Young Democrats chapter, said three people who were gathering signatures on campus last week to get Strayhorn on the November ballot told him she had never supported legislation that gave university leaders the authority to set a portion of tuition rates.

As comptroller, Strayhorn issued a report in 2003 urging state leaders to transfer that power from the Legislature to the universities.

"Given her clear record as one of the original supporters of tuition deregulation, this is a deliberate attempt to fabricate her record and mislead Texas college students," Warner said in a prepared statement.

Strayhorn spokesman Mark Sanders said no campaign employee has ever misrepresented her position. But an unknown number of volunteers are also collecting signatures, with or without the campaign's knowledge, and one of them may have misspoke, he said.

"The point is the campaign has been at all times upfront and truthful about the comptroller's positions on a myriad of issues," he said.

Tempest in a teapot.

Posted by: Greg at 10:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

Property tax cuts and appraisal caps have been big issues in Texas. They were, in fact, a major issue in Dan PatrickÂ’s stunning SD7 victory in the 4-way race for the GOP nomination. But will they be part of Governor Rick PerryÂ’s proposal for the special session on education that begins in a week?

For the fifth time in two years, Gov. Rick Perry is asking legislators to cut school property taxes, but something is missing, so far, in his election-year effort to keep a 2002 campaign pledge.

Facing a Texas Supreme Court order and a June 1 deadline to fix the school funding system, Perry isn't proposing lower limits on how homes are appraised, or valued, for tax purposes, a key factor in escalating property taxes.

In recent years, the governor repeatedly had called for lower appraisal caps or revenue limits on local governments, arguing that without them reductions in property tax rates soon would be eroded by rising property values.

He says he still supports the caps but doesn't want legislators, when they convene April 17, to be distracted by other controversies until they address the court order, which doesn't require action on property appraisals.

Appraisal limits may be debated anyway, with the possibility that Perry eventually will add them to the session's agenda, and they may be more controversial than ever.

I’ll say it flat-out – failure to include them in the proposal, and failure to aggressively seek to have them put in place, will get this broken-glass Republican voter thinking Kinky thoughts on election day in November. Is that clear, Governor Perry?

Posted by: Greg at 09:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 276 words, total size 2 kb.

I'd just like to take a moment to point out this article about Tom DeLay that I found tonight when I bounced through the Washington Post website. It talks about something that, if you ever meet the man, you will quickly learn is of incredible importance to him. And it is one of those things for which Tom DeLay is rarely recognized by his opponents, who find it necessary to paint him as a cold-hearted evil SOB.

With its white rail fence, long entry drive, and landscaped lawns surrounding large brick houses, Rio Bend looks like many of the neighborhoods springing up in the exurbs southwest of Houston. But the 13 adults and 26 children who have moved in since summer of last year are part of a novel experiment in foster care -- built with money from the fundraising operation of former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and his wife's drive to change child welfare policy.

Rio Bend, still under construction, is the only subdivision in the United States designed for each home to be filled with a foster family.

The 10 girls and 16 boys living here so far share the damaging histories of youngsters throughout Texas and the nation's overburdened foster care systems: neglect, beatings, sexual abuse, psychiatric disorders and the added trauma of moving from place to place. This nascent community is to provide a permanent place to live until they become self-reliant adults: a family-like environment with a strong Christian presence that erases the stigma of being a foster child because every kid here is one.

When he resigned from Congress last week engulfed in legal and political troubles, DeLay said that one of his main goals is to finish building Rio Bend -- and to use it as a role model to transform foster care around the country. His wife, Christine, is the hands-on board chairwoman of the nonprofit corporation, Oaks at Rio Bend Inc.

The ideas behind Rio Bend shatter the orthodoxy of both the right and the left about child welfare. The DeLays' belief in long-term foster homes departs from mainstream thinking that foster children should be reunited with a parent or adopted. Christine DeLay said she is "not big on family reunification" and that teenagers, the focus of Rio Bend, seldom get adopted.

The experiment unfolding here also breaks away from the idea of foster care as mainly a government responsibility. Although the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services remains legally responsible for the children here and pays their foster parents a stipend, the neighborhood is being built entirely with private money -- $8.9 million so far, $7.3 million of it raised through a controversial charity affiliated with DeLay. The foster parents pay a small rent, $450 a month, that is pooled to pay for extras not covered by the state.

Among the issues Tom DeLay worked on during his career in the House of Representatives were those related foster care and adoption. Now that he is leaving Congress, expect to see him do more of that -- and for him to be more public about those issues.

And ask yourself this -- how many other Washington big-wigs care about those issues and have been foster parents themselves?

Posted by: Greg at 02:26 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 559 words, total size 3 kb.

Or will the culture of corruption in that has run rampant among the Donks for generations be allowed to continue unabated?

The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) today disclosed that it filed a 500-page Complaint on February 28 with the office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia detailing hundreds of ethics law violations by Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV).

Rep. Mollohan is the ranking member of the House ethics committee and a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee. The Wall Street Journal this morning carried a front-page story about the case.

The lengthy complaint followed a nine-month investigation by NLPC, the ethics group that also broke the Boeing procurement scandal in 2003. NLPC alleged financial conflicts of interest by former Air Force official Darleen Druyun in negotiating the lease of refueling tanker aircraft. Ms. Druyun and Boeing CFO Michael Sears eventually served prison terms, and Boeing CEO Phil Condit resigned.

Would the Democrats have stood by for Tom DeLay serving on the Ethics Committee? We all know the answer -- so will they apply the same standard to one of their own?

What is the problem?

The Wall Street Journal leads today with a piece on Rep. Alan Mollohan (W.Va.), the Democratic ranking member on the House Ethics Committee. Mollohan, also a member of the Appropriations Committee, has earmarked millions in funds for non-profits run by his business partner and some campaign contributors.

The Journal reports that Mollohan is now under investigation, and if this release by the National Legal and Policy Center has any validity, he may have been understating his assets in his congressional disclosure forms over a nine year period. NLPC claims to have conducted a nine-month investigation into Mollohan's finances, triggered by the unusual rise in his net worth since 2000.

"When Mollohan failed to disclose an asset we would document his ownership interest with a deed, Uniform Commercial Code filing or other public record," reads a statement by NLPC Chairman Ken Boehm. "In all, we documented over 250 misrepresentations and omissions. ... The real issue here is not whether Mollohan systematically was hiding financial and real estate assets and grossly misrepresenting their value. He was. The real issue is why he was hiding those assets."

Sounds rather serious to me -- perhaps he needs to get off the Appropriations Committee, too.

Oh, and I love this little tidbit at the end of the Human Events piece.

Currently, the three congressmen who appear most likely to be indicted are Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.), William Jefferson (D-La.), and Bob Ney (R-Ohio). Add Mollohan to that list, and it could become difficult for Democrats to campaign on the "Republican Culture of Corruption" that has laced their rhetoric for months now.

I wonder -- how much attention with the MSM pay to these charges?

H/T No Agenda & GOPBloggers

Posted by: Greg at 01:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 495 words, total size 3 kb.

You have to feel bad for Patrrick Fitzgerald. If what he just filed is true, then the entire notion that there was a crime committed in the Plame case likely goes right out the window.

President Bush authorized White House official I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to disclose highly sensitive intelligence information to the news media in an attempt to discredit a CIA adviser whose views undermined the rationale for the invasion of Iraq, according to a federal prosecutor's account of Libby's testimony to a grand jury.

The court filing by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald for the first time places Bush and Vice President Cheney at the heart of what Libby testified was an exceptional and deliberate leak of material designed to buttress the administration's claim that Iraq was trying to obtain nuclear weapons. The information was contained in the National Intelligence Estimate, one of the most closely held CIA analyses of whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the war.

Fitzgerald said Libby's disclosure took place as the result of "a strong desire by many, including multiple people in the White House, to repudiate" claims made in a July 2003 newspaper article by former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who was hired by the CIA to evaluate whether Iraq sought nuclear material in Niger. Wilson wrote that "some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

The White House did not challenge the prosecutor's account of Bush's and Cheney's role in orchestrating the effort to discredit Wilson yesterday. Both Bush and Cheney have been interviewed by Fitzgerald, but the details of what they told him are unknown. Fitzgerald's new account is based on Libby's grand jury testimony that Cheney told him Bush had authorized the declassification and disclosure of some of the information.

Because after all -- as Commander in Chief, who has the ultimate authority to declassify information? President George W. Bush. And since it has long been established that he similarly authorized Vice President Dick Cheney to declassify information, any disclosures they authorized would be legal.

I guess Fitmas ain't coming for the Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers after all

Posted by: Greg at 10:45 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 369 words, total size 2 kb.

A week later, this arrogant sack of crap finally apologizes.

"There should not have been any physical contact in this incident," McKinney said in brief remarks on the House floor. "I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all and I regret its escalation and I apologize."

But only after this.

No more he-grabbed-she-slapped -- whether U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney should be charged over a confrontation with Capitol Police last week will be decided by a grand jury, perhaps as soon as next week, said federal law enforcement sources familiar with the case.

Prosecutors have decided to present the case, and the grand jury will begin hearing testimony Thursday, the two sources said.

Senior congressional sources said that two House staff members -- Troy Phillips, an aide to Rep. Sam Farr, D-California, and Lisa Subrize, executive assistant to Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Michigan -- have been subpoenaed to testify.

The Justice Department and the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, which is handling the case, refused to comment.

Which was preceded by this and this.

As U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Georgia, faces possible criminal charges for a Wednesday altercation with a Capitol Police officer, one of her lawyers said Friday that the real issues were "sex, race and Ms. McKinney's progressiveness."

In a news conference featuring actor Danny Glover and singer Harry Belafonte, McKinney said she would be exonerated and that "this whole incident was instigated by the inappropriate touching and stopping of me, a female, black congresswoman."

* * *

During the conference, held at historically black Howard University in Washington, civil rights attorney James Myart said his client was "assaulted" by a Capitol Police officer, whose name the department refuses to release.

"Because she was assaulted and placed in impending fear of her safety, she responded," he said. "This case has just begun and we're going to fight, and we're going to use the U.S. Constitution."

Myart said McKinney would seek a criminal investigation against the officer, and a civil lawsuit against both the officer and the Capitol Police is being explored.

Sorry, Cynthia – you made this about the integrity of the Capitol Hill Police. That force will be vindicated – and you will pay the price for your arrogant, criminal behavior.

IÂ’m personally hoping for a felony charge, and at least as much jail time as Martha Stewart got.

And hopefully this ethics complaint will result in harsh sanctions against McKinney.

Soon-to-retire Rep. Tom DeLay (R.-Tex.) said today he would file an ethics complaint against Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D.-Ga.) for striking a Capitol Police officer should no other House member do so first.

DeLayÂ’s comments came during a wide-ranging interview at his Capitol Hill office with reporters, including HUMAN EVENTS Editor Terry Jeffrey.

“If nobody in this House files an ethics charge, I am,” DeLay said in response to a question about McKinney. “Her behavior is outrageous. And it’s not the only time.”

DeLay was asked if he supported the Capitol PoliceÂ’s actions following the incident with McKinney, which took place last week when she bypassed a metal detector and a police officer stopped her.

“You bet,” he said.

“It’s outrageous behavior,” he said about McKinney. “Had it been Tom DeLay, the Ethics Committee would have met the next day.”

Which was exactly my point the other day. WonÂ’t it be poetic justice that DeLayÂ’s final act will be to uphold the honor and dignity of the House of Representatives.

UPDATE: Looks like McKinney isn’t too contrite – she has hired a bodyguard who intimidates reporters.

[E]ven as McKinney appeared to be trying to put the issue to rest, a bodyguard she hired – reportedly a former Georgia state trooper – was raising another furor when he threatened a television reporter trying to interview McKinney outside the Capitol just minutes before she appeared on the House floor.

When the reporter from Cox Broadcasting tried to ask McKinney about the grand jury, the bodyguard told him, "I'm going to put your ass in jail. I'm a police officer," a videotape of the incident shows.

Her Majesty The Congresswoman doesn’t have to speak to the press – but her retainers are out of line making threats they cannot carry out in an attempt to stop the exercise of Constitutional rights. Last time I checked, that was a violation of civil rights.

UPDATE 2: Gee, not only was there a threat against the reporter, but Her Majesty The Congresswoman's thug-for-hire actually laid hands on the reporter -- on camera, no less!

As she was heading into the U.S. Capitol to apologize for a run-in with a police officer, a bodyguard for Rep. Cynthia McKinney shoved a reporter for Channel 2 Action News.

Reporter Scott MacFarlane was trying to question McKinney as she entered the Capitol.

As the group moved across the Capitol grounds McKinney's bodyguard tried to block access to the congresswoman.

At one point the unidentified bodyguard and MacFarlane bumped into each other.

The bodyguard then shoved the reporter telling him, "I'm going to put your ass in jail."

When asked if he worked for the Capitol Police the bodyguard responded, "I work for Ms. McKinney." On the tape of the incident you can hear the man say that he wasn't a Capitol police officer but that, "I am a police officer." McKinney's office is now saying that the man was not a police officer, but a driver for the congresswoman.

The Capitol Police Criminal Investigative Department is investigating the incident and trying to determine who the man is.

MacFarlane says he believes that he and the bodyguard were both equal parties when they intially collided. MacFarlane says the bodyguard did give him a shove after the initial contact as they approached the Capitol steps, but that he does not begrudge him for that.

Seems to me that there could be grounds for assault charges against the bodyguard as well. Maybe he and Cynthia could share a cell.

(H/T Michelle Malkin)

UPDATE 2: At least one Congressional Black Caucus loon is defending Crazy Cindy.

"I feel there is some racial profiling in this case," said Georgia state Rep. Tyrone L. Brooks Sr. (D), who has known McKinney for 30 years and was her campaign manager from 1992 to 2002. "Believe me, I know in my travels through the government buildings, I know my white colleagues are treated differently from me."

Because, of course, white folks without credentials are routinely allowed to skip the security procedures -- right, Tyrone? Or is it just that when presented with the choice between a simple, non-racial, no-conspiratorial explanation and an explanation involving racism, poverty pimps and race 'ho's always play the race card.

Posted by: Greg at 10:37 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 1117 words, total size 8 kb.